Committee revisioning is pulled; critics still sound off in tense public comment session

Wednesday night’s city council public comment session brought out a number of powerful opinions from the community.Mayor Dan Clark opened the council by announcing an anticipated but highly charged discussion item regarding the “re-visioning” process for the Measure L Advisory Committee had been pulled, noting it was not a universal decision.

Vice Mayor Chip Holloway and Mayor Pro Tem Jason Patin were the only ones to overtly state their positions. Holloway wanted it off while Patin indicated he had wanted it discussed.

Sharon Paxton was the first to take the stand, stating the agenda item was the reason that brought her out and that the city needed Measure L and its committee.

“I want to remind you of how you went door-to-door, talked to people and encouraged them to vote for it,” Paxton said. “It was to go to streets and to public safety. It wasn’t to go to special interest groups.”

Paxton pointed out it was the community’s expectation the council represent the people.

Jim Fallgatter took the stand next as he calmly but enthusiastically thanked the council for pulling the agenda item.

“I’m assuming it was for very positive reasons and that this whole issue of re-visioning will soon be put behind us,” Fallgatter said. “It was misguided and sent a huge wrong message to our city.”

He said his takeaway from attending the Jan. 14 committee meeting was that the committee was doing an outstanding job, praising Salvatore’s budget baseline as a necessary asset

Former Councilman Jerry Taylor put forth his reason for being at Wednesday’s meeting was for the city. Taylor said he had advocated and walked for Measure L and the city needed it.

“But what this city also needs is five years from now Measure XYZ,” he said. He said it was a matter of worrying “not about the battle in front of you but the next war.”

He charged that the council should be thinking about credibility when the matter came up in five years.

Taylor recommended pushing forward a balanced draft budget without Measure L, and then augment it with Measure L funds. He said hard decisions would be made without that budget, including the possibility of a police officer.

“But you would also have to cut other things that you are currently not cutting,” he said.

The idea appeared to garner positive feedback, with Patin commenting at the end of the meeting as something the council should pursue.

Tom Wiknich took the stand, stating that perception was reality to some people and that the documents presented regarding the mayor’s suggestions were one such perception of matters discussed by the entire council.

“There is a perception that there are some things are going on behind the scene,” he said “These documents make it seem that way.”

City Attorney Keith Lemieux responded that it was at city legal’s request, citing an opportunity to speak with committee members individually. This drew some concern from Wiknich and members of the public.

Page 2 of 3 - Phil Salvatore pointed out that any proposal of a potential parks and recreation district would encompass the entire valley, not just the confines of city, but would require trust.

“How the council deals with Measure L will determine a Parks and Recreation district,” he said.

Council Comments

The council stayed mum on the entire issue during public comment, but addressed it in their own way during closing council comment.

“I think we’re moving in the wrong direction with the re-visioning,” Jim Sanders said. He said the committee would be better left as it was. “The way I read it (the ordinance), they are doing what we intended them to do.”

He pointed out that from his perspective, the initial staff involvement time would rapidly decrease now that a baseline had been established

“I think it was unwise to attack this issue and I think we’re losing public confidence,” he said.

Vice Mayor Chip Holloway said that while the intent was good and honorable, it was being twisted from both sides. He commended Salvatore’s report, whether or not it was in the Measure L committee’s scope.

“It’s information that’s been needed in this community for a long time,” he said. He said it was an invaluable asset that might help extend the measure in five years.

Patin pointed out that there was value in the committee’s work and did not mind if it continued, but also pointed out neither had a cat in the other’s fight, and should not be giving direction to one another.

Patin lambasted any accusations and rumors of money being spent on things other than police and streets.

Councilwoman Lori Acton spoke up, asking first if any Measure L money had come in and if it had been spent beforehand. Clark confirmed an approximate $250,000 had come in, and that the city had borrowed from other funds in advance to help with public safety expenditures.

Acton said the misconceptions that the committee should be disbanded were not true.

“Nobody said that,” she said.

Fallgatter interjected from the audience that it was untrue, pointing out a letter had been presented at the Jan. 14 meeting.

Clark politely reprimanded Fallgatter, reminding him that Acton had the stand.

“And this is why I am angry,” Acton said, “because there is no respect.”

Salvatore called out to stop lying, and again Clark issued a warning.

“This is council comment. You had your chance to speak and no one said a word,” Clark said.

Page 3 of 3 - Salvatore left the chambers following that.

Acton continued, again pointing out the council said nothing about dissolving the Measure L committee.

“It’s very frustrating when things are misconstrued,” noting that while intentions were good, it didn’t come across that way. “What we need to do now is clear the air so to speak and fix that and go forward.”

Acton touched on Patin’s comment that the committee and council’s duties were different, calling out that the people who spoke on the issue during public comment were no longer present to hear the comments.

Garver pointed out from the stands that the reason for a large departure was because the item had been pulled and dialogue nixed in the process, calling it sandbagging the issue.

Patin cautioned that the council had not spoken over anyone during public comment, and should show respect if it was expected.

Clark called the whole matter a blessing, as they could deal with the matter now rather than later, no matter how much it hurt.

“We’re going to make this work,” he said. “It’s critical to the community.”